Look At Sick People To Give Your Immune System a Boost

Scientists at the University of British Columbia have found that looking at someone who appears sick boosts your immune system. Subjects had blood taken before and after watching a 10-minute slide show that contained disturbing images including people who appeared sick. Results of the blood tests showed people who had seen the sick people had a stronger immune system. From the article: "In the study, young adults were asked to watch a 10-minute slide show containing a series of unpleasant photographs. Some pictures included people who looked obviously ill in some way. The subjects' blood samples were then tested for levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a substance produced by the immune system that indicates your immune system is ramping up to more aggressively fight infection. As a control, pictures of people brandishing guns were also used on some participants—and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production, signifying that IL-6 production is not simply a reaction to stress."

Comments

Alternate interpretation

[Minwee]

As a control, pictures of people brandishing guns were also used on some participants--and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production, signifying that IL-6 production is not simply a reaction to stress.

You could look at it that way. Or you could see that the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Thanshin]

Or you could see that the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets.

That's not completely true. The problem is with the visibility of the bullets. At the subjects weren't able to see the bullets in movement, their bullet resistance didn't raise.

To prove that theory we shot them with visible bullets and, as postulated, they were indeed immune.

You can check the results in our full analysis: [i]"Bullet resistance to bullets slowed down to improve their visibility"[/i].

Re:Alternate interpretation

[eclectro]

Or perhaps the subjects have seen so much gun-play on TV that seeing guns in pictures no longer evokes a stressful response.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[religious freak]

and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production

I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....

Re:Alternate interpretation

[blair1q]

Security through obscurity. A bullet has to hit certain critical points in order to be fatal. Most of the body is a decoy. And it's covered by an opaque curtain. You have to have specific, inside information about anatomy, or have been clued by experienced hackers, to know where to aim your bullets. But, like all matters of security through obscurity, once the truth is out there it's like no security at all. Even swapping your heart for your brain won't make you more secure.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[somersault]

I dunno.. the video of the actual experiment seems to indicate otherwise.

Re:Alternate interpretation

[Angst Badger]

My first thought was that pictures of people brandishing guns are so ubiquitous -- a large portion of the entertainment industry is devoted to exactly that -- that they're not necessarily a source of actual stress in most people. The researchers would have been better off using a loud, unexpected noise (dropping a heavy book on the floor behind the subject has been used in some experiments) or requiring the subjects to complete some arbitrary puzzle with a time limit if they wanted to generate stress in their subjects.

Personally, I'd have used a photo of a client demanding IE6 compatibility for their new web app.

Re:Frist Prost

[Lunix Nutcase]

I'm sorry, but the answer was Naggers.

Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[EmagGeek]

I don't get it. When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the internet to get the specs to see if it's something I'd want to buy.

The fact that the majority of the world has denied the human right of self defense to its citizens is the only thing I can think of that would be a cause of stress with respect to guns.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Really? because I have been a gun owner for about 15+ years and my guns have never maimed or killed anyone. Maybe I should return them for a refund??

I enjoy target shooting. I don't even hunt, and have never shot at a live animal or human being before. I bought MY guns for the sole purpose of shooting at cardboard targets. So to be honest, it is YOUR opinion that is twisted - if you think the only purpose for guns is killing or harming other human beings, that says a lot more about your psychological profile than anything. And if you can point to any case where a gun killed somebody by itself, with no additional human interaction, I will eat all of my guns. You see, people kill people. There was murder and violence (and a lot more of it) before there were guns. Given the choice, would you rather be run through by a sword and die slowly, or be shot by a gun and die quickly??

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Low Ranked Craig]

Not really

A gun is just a tool. The purpose relates to the intent of the person with the gun.

My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals. If you have to go to south Phoenix with a lot of cash, or happen to be walking your dog and happen upon a herd of Javilina in the spring, you'll see what I mean.

My intent with my rifle, and therefore the purpose is recreation. It's fun and challenging to shoot targets 100s of yards away with iron sights.

My father's intent with his rifle is to shoot, and subsequently eat a deer, therefore the purpose is hunting.

A criminal's intent bay be to kill a competitor or rob a store, therefore the purpose is to kill or at least threaten people.

Tools do not have intent; they are inert. It takes a person to bring intent and purpose to the tool.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[clone53421]

You said its sole purpose is “to maim and or kill people”. This is incorrect.

A weapon worn for self-defense has two purposes.

Its primary purpose is to show the threat of maiming or killing the would-be assailant. Its secondary purpose is to maim and/or kill an attacker who was not deterred by its primary purpose.

However, the “sole” purpose (nor the primary purpose even) is NOT to maim and/or kill.

Besides all of which, you say “maim and or kill” as if maiming and/or killing an attacker in self-defense is wrong.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

"I said that the point of a gun is to kill or maim someone."

That is inferring that the only reason to buy a gun is to kill or maim someone. So yes, technically you didn't say those exact words, but you sure meant them. I use my gun expressly for the purpose that I bought it for - target shooting.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BobMcD]

Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.

Which is nothing more than a cute attempt at trying to deflect the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.

This doesn't seem to be true on its face. You could modify the tail of the statement to include animals and you'd be okay, but you're specifically omitting this.

To make your statement true, you'd need to assume that guns were created to serve the needs of modern society. They weren't. The first projectile weapons were designed for harvesting animals from the wild. Animals, being faster and more wary than humans, needed to be killed at range. Humans, not so much. However, even in the traditional human-only weapons you'll find examples of converted tools. Swords are really just big knives, axes were used to work wood initially, etc. Now it is true that the first guns were probably cannons used on things like castles and the like, but the concept of propelling a solid object to collide with something and harm it had been long established beforehand. A world that would invent this concept only for killing humans is one where you can buy your food at a grocery store. This isn't where the gun comes from, historically speaking.

A gun is a tool just like any other. Using your line of assessment, one could look at online pornography and conclude that the computer was invented solely for this purpose. You could do that, but only by ignoring history.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[X0563511]

So, the point of these are to maim and/or kill people?

No.

A guns entire purpose is to accelerate a projectile. What the purpose of this acceleration is rests entirely upon the user.

Jeez. You don't think the same way about knives do you? Sharp objects? How about rockets? Those do a lot more than make things explode.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[maxwell demon]

I don't get it. When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the internet to get the specs to see if it's something I'd want to buy.

That's consumer stress. And it's obviously caused by the photo of the gun.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[purplepolecat]

It's not just a guy with a gun. It's a guy in a stocking mask with an angry expression, pointing a gun directly at the viewer. If you ever find yourself in this situation in real life, the appropriate response is to feel threatened. Just so you know.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Eternauta3k]

My guns are not a deterrent to anyone but cardboard targets.

So, because carboard targets are deemed "acceptable targets", you're just gonna shoot them? 200 years ago, we might be having this conversation about black people.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Notquitecajun]

Seriously? Common sense doesn't tell you this?

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=83&issue=010

"Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually.

Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million; 40-45 million own handguns.

You'd have to go a LONG way toward showing otherwise...

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

It is desirable becasue that is all part of shooting real bullets out of a gun. If I wanted to shoot lasers, I would. The recoil isn't that hard to simulate - I shot a gun loaded with blanks that had a laser targeting system on it. Probably the closest you can get to simulating the firing of a real bullet. That said it still wasn't even close to the real thing, but closer than some other alternatives.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Oh, Ok I get it. I didn't realize you were the sole person who decides what is "the production or operation of something useful" or in other words "practical". Now that I understand it in that "context", I understand the actual meaning.

If you don't like something, it isn't "practical".

I am glad I live in a country that guarantees me freedom for the pursuit of happiness, and I don't need a "practical" reason to do things. I like to target shoot. Something that makes you happy doesn't need any other purpose. I care very little if you think it is useful to society or not. I am sure there are things that you do that I don't deem practical, but I know you have the freedom to pursue them if you wish. I wouldn't want to interfere with that.

Actually

[Monkeedude1212]

After watching a depressing 10 minute slide show of people who were feeling sick, all of the test subjects felt like getting drunk. Sadly, the only thing available was cough medicine.

Microsoft To Blame

[MyLongNickName]

Step #1: Fire up Linux box
Step #2: Hook up webcam
Step #3: Point webcam at co-worker's Windows box
Step #4: Linux more secure than ever.

Stress?

[Nidi62]

If they wanted to control for stress, showing pictures of guns in not going to do it. The average person does not get stressed when they see a picture of a gun. For an accurate control of stress, they would need to have someone burst in with a prop gun. THAT will cause stress. In any case, is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat? I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.

Makes good sense

[querent23]

This makes perfect evolutionary sense for an emergent, highly social species. Without such a mechanism, it is possible that cities could never have occurred.

Re:Makes good sense

[sznupi]

Better talk about it the other way around, or some people might strenghten their weird understanding of evolution.

When our ancestors were encountering visibly sick individuals, those with traits of discovered mechanism were somewhat more likely to survive and leave offspring.

Re:Makes good sense

[timeOday]

Look, I believe in evolution, but it "explains" almost anything you can imagine, such as why humans have wings (to evade predators, of course). (My remark is by no means a new insight). So we need to be careful about rationalizing things in retrospect.

healthy enough already = ?

[jjeffries]

My immune system is currently plenty strong and I never get sick; if I look at sick people and boost it even further, will I get an autoimmune disease?

Correlation Is Not Causation

[shambalagoon]

I just noticed the "correlationisnotcausation" tag. Is that just a knee-jerk reaction to studies now?

Are we suggesting that an increase in immune system activity CAUSED people to view a slide show about sick people?

I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

... and ask, "Y'all got any folks here who look like real sick? I need to look at 'em to boost my im-ma-ume system, or sumptin' like that.

Maybe that's why Mother Theresa lived so long: "For over 45 years she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa " She must have had one tough bad-ass immune system.

So if I watch more NASCAR, will I avoid traffic accidents, and get cheaper car insurance?

Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?

Correlation is not causation, but causation is.

[neonleonb]

Why the dickens are people tagging this "correlationisnotcausation"? It was a controlled experiment, so there weren't any hidden causes to explain away the causation. It's like people don't actually understand what "correlation is not causation" means... but I'd hoped that at least here on Slashdot folks would be cleverer than that.

Works for me

[Low Ranked Craig]

All I know is that when I go visit my 87 year old grandma at the old folks home, I develop a burning desire to go to the gym and eat broccoli.

Re:Maybe it was just drawing the blood?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The control would have covered that, and it could indeed have accounted for the "barely significant" raise in levels in the controls.

I see dead people

[srobert]

If looking at sick people boosts the immune system, then looking at dead people should make me immortal.

New excuse to play violent video games

[CODiNE]

finally some research supporting "the other side" eh?

"This ain't pointless violence, it's immune boosting!"

So...

[bobdotorg]

If I have the girlfriend watch a ten minute slide show of really pregnant women she can stop taking the pill?

Nicely done

[marcus]

His comment is the equivalent of saying "the purpose of a car is to take you to work and back home every day."

Sadly, he's just another victim.